|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: UKIP membership a bar to fostering
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Soldiers and police officers, with the exception of when they assault and murder innocent people, tend to get a very easy ride in the media. Teachers and social workers get pilloried by one outlet or another for pretty much anything they do, and all the ills of society get laid at their door. Teachers and social workers would be happy to get the same level of respect offered to the police, it would be a big step up.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
What Trisagion said. There doesn't seem to much if anything more to meet the eye here other than political bigotry on the part of the social services.
[ 25. November 2012, 16:44: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Trisagion - I was only trying to explore the complex and difficult task of fostering, and social workers as a whole, not saying that this particular case was done on short notice. It is more that children are often moved around homes quickly, even if not in this case. Once a child is in the fostering system, their life has been disrupted.
There seems to be, from what I have heard, confusion as to the reason for the move. The waffling around this does suggest that their political position was part at least of this, but surely they would have known of the parents political position before this time? Which is why I suspect that there is more than this to it.
And social workers do not expect to make mistakes and get away with it. However they are particularly susceptible to people who do not know or understand the case making snap judgements on them. They do, as a whole, appreciate the responsibility put on them, but as a whole, they do find that their decisions are often challenged publically. I know that in my business, this level of scrutiny would drive me away - it is insane.
People make mistakes. People who deal with other people make mistakes, and sometimes they cause problems, people suffer, people die. Sometimes we need to accept this. Sometimes we need to look at how often people get it right, not how often they get it wrong. Believing the best of people seems to me like the Christian approach - not naivety, but acceptance.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
My understanding from reports is that they do not habitually ask about political affiliation but had an anonymous contact about the issue in this case, which would explain the delay.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
My understanding from reports is that they do not habitually ask about political affiliation but had an anonymous contact about the issue in this case, which would explain the delay.
And tends to further my support my contention that this was a politically motivated and ideologically based act rather than anything else.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
My understanding from reports is that they do not habitually ask about political affiliation but had an anonymous contact about the issue in this case, which would explain the delay.
Do you genuinely mean 'anonymous', or do you mean a contact who said they didn't want his or her name made public? There's a huge difference.
As a general principle, one should ignore a truly anonymous denunciation and make it publically clear on every possible occasion that that will be your normal practice.
One should also never act on any denunciation or tip off without checking and verifying it, and that one cannot do with an anonymous one.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
quote:
My understanding from reports is that they do not habitually ask about political affiliation but had an anonymous contact about the issue in this case, which would explain the delay.
I have never been asked about my party politics in any interview with social workers but then I am a right on leftie so it would possibly have been and advantage if I had been according to some. I have been asked about my views on multi culturalism, on my views on other faiths (many many times), on my views on education and other issues on which political parties have policies. However I guess because I am a low level activist leaflets can be seen in my house near election time and things come up in conversation, so no doubt social workers know where I stand.
David Cameron has interesting views on UKIP members, “a bunch of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists” not ideal foster carers then!
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
quote:
As a general principle, one should ignore a truly anonymous denunciation and make it publically clear on every possible occasion that that will be your normal practice.
One should also never act on any denunciation or tip off without checking and verifying it, and that one cannot do with an anonymous one.
Imagine if a social worker took this line and didn't act on an anonymous tip off and a child was hurt. Then the person came forward and explained that for some good reason in their mind they didn't give their name at the time, perhaps a fear of their own children being attacked but did warn the social worker of the danger to the child. How would the headlines read the next day? I tell you what, they would not look good for the social worker.
While in the case of membership of a political party it may be OK to ignore a tip off I don't think that can be a policy.
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
So you act without verification then?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So you act without verification then?
It's generally possible to investigate an anonymous allegation without assuming the allegation is true. With regard to UKIP membership there's the simple expedient of, y'know, asking.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
My understanding from reports is that they do not habitually ask about political affiliation but had an anonymous contact about the issue in this case, which would explain the delay.
And tends to further my support my contention that this was a politically motivated and ideologically based act rather than anything else.
Newest question to be asked of potential foster parents.
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the UKIP?"
Foster parents answering that they are members of the UKIP will not be allowed to foster children. Those who say they were members of the UKIP but aren't any longer may be allowed to foster children provided they name names of other potential foster parents who are members of the UKIP. Foster parents answering that they have never been members of the UKIP will be allowed to foster children provided they haven't already been named as party members. If they have, they'll only be allowed to foster children after admitting to involvement with the UKIP and naming names of other potential foster parents who are members of the UKIP.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Caught up on the radio and TV interviews with Joyce Thacker. It looks bad for Rotherham Children's Services. It looks as though the policy on cultural and ethnic needs was, and still is, incoherent.
Here she is.
"There was no issue over the quality of the care provided" (by the UKIP-supporting foster parents).
As best I can understand it, they were fine for emergency care but not for a longer term placement? But the couple apparently had a seven year track record, were entrusted with the children after court criticism, on cultural and ethnic support grounds, of previous care. So they were trusted on their track record for an emergency placement where sensitivity was required, but then found wanting because "somebody" revealed their political allegiance?
I can't see how that makes any sense at all. That's pure guilt by association, in a situation where they apparently had good reasons to trust the couple concerned. That looks like a failure of nerve following criticism.
I did look on the Rotherham website but I could find no clear statement about the need to provide proper cultural and ethnic care - and the implications of that for foster parent selection, or training.
Maybe you can do better?
On the face of it, Rotherham need to do a lot better.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Hmm, court criticised them - then legal advice supported the criticism. Seems then social services got very twitchy. Wonder what the court were originally referencing ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I found this on the Norwich website in the FAQ section for prospective foster-carers
Interesting answer.
Click on the 9th FAQ "Do I have a choice on the type of child I care for?"
And you find this answer.
quote:
Before you are approved by the fostering panel, we will have agreed on the type of child who will fit in with your family. This includes the age, gender, ethnicity and religion of potential foster children.
The Norwich view appears to be that in order to comply with best-fit policy and practice on culture and ethnicity issues, the authority and the carers agree together in advance. Political allegiance is a side issue, since foster-carer personal preferences (however arrived at) and local authority views are resolved together. That would seem to provide protection from specific court criticism over matters of policy.
No doubt it's an ideal view, given the perennial shortages of foster-carers just about everywhere. It's a "restricted choices" world. Practice will be relatively pragmatic. For example, I'm sure that in emergency care situations it's "any port in a storm". But by agreement. And at least the foster-carers know the score. Culture and ethnicity are issues "we" need to resolve together in advance.
[This isn't just theory. I know two foster carers in Norwich, who are both evangelical Christians, who were entrusted with care of a child from an Islamic background and, for example, took the child regularly to the local mosque in accordance with the agreed cultural and ethnic needs of the child. Thinking in terms of types does not necessarily lead to stereotyped solutions.]
In advance of the inquiry, we can't be 100% sure that such a policy did not exist in Rotherham. But it seems very unlikely that it did. If it had, or was planned as a reform, Joyce Thacker's interviews would surely have sounded very different.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
That is interesting Barnabus but for clarity the link is to NFA which is an idependant fostering agency not Norwich CC but the point is still true, that a discussion will take place between carers, social workers and again at the panel meeting (see below)about which ages, how many and from which ethnic backgrounds carers are most suited to care for. However, I think if a carer said that there were no circumstances under which they would care for a child from a particular ethnic or religious background alarm bells would ring.
The panel is a group of people you make the recommendation for approval or not of foster carers and long term placements, they include social workers, health care professionals, existing foster carers, educationalists, in a local authority setting the councillor who has the ultimate responsibility for children in care and others with something to contribute to the assessment process
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes, thanks for the clarification and correction. The link was arrived at by googling foster care in Norwich and found after a a bit of navigation through links. Missed the switch!
I'm sure that current Norwich policy and practice conforms to those NFA guidelines. (Which is borne out by the experience of the couple I know.)
As you say, the point still stands. It looks like good policy thinking, capable of practical implementation anywhere.
[ 26. November 2012, 08:26: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Beeswax Altar
UKIP wish to repeal (note, not amend) the 1998 Human Rights Act, which is concerned with enforcing under English Law the European Convention on Human Rights. Here it is.
Here are the provisions of that convention.
Note Articles 9 and 14 in particular.
Wanting to repeal an Act is not the same as being opposed to the provisions menationed in certain cherry-picked articles from that act. Freedom of conscience and prohibition of discrimination are supported by UKIP. As they explain here human rights are already fully supported and legally provided for in existing domestic laws outside of the act. What they don't support is the UK being subject to a foreign court, as well as the too-broad language that allows the ECHR to prohibit UK exercise of its own laws in effectively punishing and deporting criminals. Is that so hard to understand?
It is worrying that people are so ready to discriminate against other people based on their political views - when they have no idea what those views actually are! Their sole knowledge being derived from prejudice rather than truth.
The council member has denigrated UKIP and claimed its members are unfit to be parents. This in my view, is outright libel, and discrimination, and UKIP, and the foster carers, who have also been tarnished with this unsubstantiated accusation, should sue her. Ironically they would likely win under the Human Rights Act Article 14, prohibiting discrimination based on political views. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
[ 26. November 2012, 09:37: Message edited by: Hawk ]
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
From Hawk
quote:
The council member has denigrated UKIP and claimed its members are unfit to be parents.
This may be nit picking but the spokesperson from Rotherham was the director of children's services an officer and professional social worker not a politican and a council member. Although we could guess her politics we don't know them, she claims to have made the decision according to her professional ethics. She never said or even implied that UKIP members are unfit to be parents only that this couple were not a good match for children for whom the council has responsibility.
[ 26. November 2012, 10:06: Message edited by: Chief of sinners ]
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Ideally, yes, but we are not perfect - and sometimes it is more useful to recognise that someone else is going to make a better job of it than you are. Especially when you are working with someone who is vulnerable, and has already gone through trauma.
Who is this 'someone else' though? Another carer may have the 'right' political views, but be not quite perfect in other ways. Do the children then get moved again to a completely different household when slightly better carers are found. And then again when slightly better carers are found again?
Just because people aren't perfect shouldn't mean you keep moving children around until you find parents that are (according to whatever definition of 'perfect' the social worker of the day holds). I would say stability with less-than-perfect, though still competent, loving, and trying-their-best parents is better than endless disruption, looking for an ideal that, in most cases, doesn't exist.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Hawk
I quote from Joyce Thacker from the video link in a prior post. This one.
"These parents, I should stress, were providing good quality care. There was no issue over the quality of the care-providing".
It looks like there is much to criticise, much to reform, in Rotherham. But Joyce Thacker did not libel the foster-parents.
Did you spot that these children were from a European migrant background? Given UKIP's policy on immigration (which includes repeal of the 1998 Human Rights Act) it would hardly have been wrong to ask a few questions about whether they agreed with that immigration policy and how that agreement might have any impact on their care of children from a migrant background.
My criticism of them is that they don't appear to have done that. Instead, they appear to have assumed unsuitability by reason of political affiliation, rather than just testing that suitability while recognising the previous good track record of the foster parents.
There is no reason to assume the foster-parents' care would be affected in practice, but it would hardly have been wrong to ask a couple of questions, would it? That's all I've been saying since the start, while being critical throughout of the way this has been handled.
[And on reflection, Hawk, you and I and others had better remember Commandment 7 in our exchanges re behaviour asserted to be libellous. - B62 Purg Host)
[ 26. November 2012, 11:39: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
Barnabas
quote:
My criticism of them is that they don't appear to have done that. Instead, they appear to have assumed unsuitability by reason of political affiliation, rather than just testing that suitability while recognising the previous good track record of the foster parents.
There is no reason to assume the foster-parents' care would be affected in practice, but it would hardly have been wrong to ask a couple of questions, would it? That's all I've been saying since the start, while being critical throughout of the way this has been handled.
Me in OP
quote:
In short without knowing all the details I have some sympathy with Rotherham Council's position, I agree that an investigation is needed and these issues need full and open discussion.
I think I am now on the same page as Barnabas, I some sympathy with the social workers but agree questions need to be asked about the handling of this case, and an open and frank discussion on the wider issues.
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The council member has denigrated UKIP and claimed its members are unfit to be parents. This in my view, is outright libel, and discrimination, and UKIP, and the foster carers, who have also been tarnished with this unsubstantiated accusation, should sue her.
It is generally understood that political parties. like local authorities, cannot sue for defamation. You can insult them as much as you like, as long as you don't, in the process, defame any flesh and blood person.
Commercial companies can, because they have commercial reputations to protect, which can be quantified.
I'd leave to those who know more about these things what rights a political party has under the European Convention. Only the bit on peaceful enjoyment of possessions seems to include non-natural persons.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Given UKIP's policy on immigration (which includes repeal of the 1998 Human Rights Act) it would hardly have been wrong to ask a few questions about whether they agreed with that immigration policy and how that agreement might have any impact on their care of children from a migrant background.
I disagree. UKIPs policy on immigration is that it needs to be restrained and controlled more strictly than current policy. Not that it should be stopped, or that past immigrants are bad people, or that immigrants or their children should be deported, or discriminated against in any way. Given this, how do their political views in any way speak against their ability to properly care for children of immigrant parents?
It is 100% valid in a democratic nation for them to disagree with current government policy, without any aspersions being made against them. If someone holds the view that current immigration controls are poor policy, that has nothing at all to do with their fitness to raise and care for children of immigrant parents.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I have to agree with Barnabas62 and Hawk!
It is quite right to ask fosterers questions about how they would treat children of Eastren European origin, and that's a good question for any potential fosterers, not just those who are members of UKIP. On the other hand it would be wrong to assume that the parents agreed with everything UKIP state in their manifesto. I doubt any member of any political party agrees with everything in their party's manifesto (except for totalitarian ones, like the Dear Old Stalinist CPGB).
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
UKIPs policy on immigration is that it needs to be restrained and controlled more strictly than current policy. Not that it should be stopped, or that past immigrants are bad people, or that immigrants or their children should be deported, or discriminated against in any way. Given this, how do their political views in any way speak against their ability to properly care for children of immigrant parents?
It's because lefties think everyone who is in any way opposed to uncontrolled or excessive immigration is a racist.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: It's because lefties think everyone who is in any way opposed to uncontrolled or excessive immigration is a racist.
Well, I only think this when I'm not too busy being instinctively anti-semitic. Or morally vain. Man, you sure have a lot of things to do when you're from the Left. They should have told me about this before I signed up.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Given UKIP's policy on immigration (which includes repeal of the 1998 Human Rights Act) it would hardly have been wrong to ask a few questions about whether they agreed with that immigration policy and how that agreement might have any impact on their care of children from a migrant background.
I disagree. UKIPs policy on immigration is that it needs to be restrained and controlled more strictly than current policy. Not that it should be stopped, or that past immigrants are bad people, or that immigrants or their children should be deported, or discriminated against in any way. [...]
If someone holds the view that current immigration controls are poor policy, that has nothing at all to do with their fitness to raise and care for children of immigrant parents.
This, to the max.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Social workers get criticised for not acting on tip offs. That's seen as a sign of neglect. "You should have at least checked!".
Social workers should also get criticised for acting on tip-offs. "You've no right to check-up on people like that!"
They can't win, can they?
Come on, Shipmates! I'm talking about questions, not casting aspersions, not the third degree. Questions in pursuit of this sort of duty of care are not snooping; they are looking after the interests of the children. Unnecessarily intrusive? Depends how its done, surely?
I've already said it looks extremely likely that the team over-reacted to a possible tip-off, assumed far too much.
I think in your indignation some of you are flipping that coin.
[ 26. November 2012, 14:14: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Why not make decisions based on how the children are being treated instead of the foster parent's political views? We often hear complaints about the lack of resources available to child protection workers. OK...then how do they have the time to worry about children who've received excellent care for the past two months? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. You'll then have more time to fix the stuff that's broken.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I thought that social workers were obliged by law to investigate many aspects of foster parents' lives and opinions? Presumably, if they didn't, and something disastrous happened, they would get pilloried for being lazy!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Beeswax Altar
I completely agree with you in principle.
Resource shortage is a huge issue; therefore so is time management.
How do they know that any placement is going OK? In this case, how was Joyce Thacker able to say the positive things she did say about the quality of care?
The answer is because there's a working relationship of some variable quality between foster-carers and social work teams. So there's some communication anyway. No doubt varying from "we're here if you need us" to the "just calling to see how the placement is going" with no doubt occasional visits thrown in. They are working together for the good of the children so they are bound to communicate to some extent.
So far as we can tell, this emergency placement was sensitive because of prior legal complaints. Something to do with the culture and ethnicity issues (European migrant community in the UK) and the way they had been handled previously. So you'd think they would want to keep more of an eye on it.
What we don't know in this case was the specific quality of the prior relationship between the foster-carers and the social-workers; how often they talked, how they got on.
Maybe that will come out in the wash?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
birdie
fowl
# 2173
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
UKIPs policy on immigration is that it needs to be restrained and controlled more strictly than current policy. Not that it should be stopped, or that past immigrants are bad people, or that immigrants or their children should be deported, or discriminated against in any way. Given this, how do their political views in any way speak against their ability to properly care for children of immigrant parents?
It's because lefties think everyone who is in any way opposed to uncontrolled or excessive immigration is a racist.
But the issue here isn't immigration, surely, but multiculturalism.
If a potential foster family have views which, for example, might lead them to discourage children from speaking their own language, or participating in the life of their own community, then that would surely be a big problem.
I have no idea if that is the case with this family, but it's not a non-issue.
--------------------
"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness."
Captain Jack Sparrow
Posts: 1290 | From: the edge | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that social workers were obliged by law to investigate many aspects of foster parents' lives and opinions? Presumably, if they didn't, and something disastrous happened, they would get pilloried for being lazy!
Quite so, and arguably this is what has happened here. Rotherham appear not to have investigated. They assumed that membership of a certain political party necessarily meant the holding of attitudes inconsistent with providing suitable care for the children.
Barnabas62: you will admit that looks like a very basic error, and one which appears not only to lack common sense. I suspect the annoyance is because of a perception that social services tie themselves up with red tape, policy guidance, and perceptions as to what the law is, and somewhere in the chaos, common sense quietly expires.
There's also this from the Torygraph:
quote:
Since the foster row story broke, claims have emerged of discrimination against other Ukip supporters. They include a former district nurse who says she was barred from volunteering as a mentor for young adults by Barnardo’s, the children’s charity, after standing as a candidate for Ukip, and another woman who alleges that she was forced out of her public sector job because she was a party activist.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by birdie:
But the issue here isn't immigration, surely, but multiculturalism.
If a potential foster family have views which, for example, might lead them to discourage children from speaking their own language, or participating in the life of their own community, then that would surely be a big problem.
I have no idea if that is the case with this family, but it's not a non-issue.
The parents assert that they were learning the children's language. If this is true, they were not anti-multiculturalist on the above description.
In any event, I understand UKIP's position to be against state promotion of multiculturalism. I fail to see why this must also mean being opposed to speaking French at home or celebrating Diwali at a private function.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Social workers get criticised for not acting on tip offs. That's seen as a sign of neglect. "You should have at least checked!".
Social workers should also get criticised for acting on tip-offs. "You've no right to check-up on people like that!"
They can't win, can they?
Come on, Shipmates! I'm talking about questions, not casting aspersions, not the third degree. Questions in pursuit of this sort of duty of care are not snooping; they are looking after the interests of the children.
What you don't understand about my (and others') criticism is that asking questions - or even treating information about someone's politicial views as a 'tip-off' needing to be investigated - is discriminatory. Discrimination is discrimination, however soft the application is.
For instance if someone tipped off social workers that the foster parents were actually jews, do you think this should result in 'questions being asked'? Not to say that all Jewish people are bad at parenting multicultural children, but after being tipped off about the parents' alleged Jewishness questions should at least be asked - in the interests of the children.
Or is that just an example of prejudice and discrimination? Should the correct response to such a tip-off be 'whether the parents are jews or not has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of care the parents provide so there's no point in investigating'.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Barnabas62: you will admit that looks like a very basic error, and one which appears not only to lack common sense.
Well, I've already said it doesn't look very good for Rotherham. But I'm more inclined to go with either "failure of nerve" (my phrase) or "seems that social services got very twitchy" (Doublethink's assessment) - in both cases after prior legal criticism.
It's easy to get confused under fire; so far as social services are concerned "under fire" is their normal operating status, given media scrutiny and public expectations. As this thread indicates, often enough they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Latest from Rotherham
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Social workers get criticised for not acting on tip offs. That's seen as a sign of neglect. "You should have at least checked!".
Social workers should also get criticised for acting on tip-offs. "You've no right to check-up on people like that!"
They can't win, can they?
Come on, Shipmates! I'm talking about questions, not casting aspersions, not the third degree. Questions in pursuit of this sort of duty of care are not snooping; they are looking after the interests of the children.
What you don't understand about my (and others') criticism is that asking questions - or even treating information about someone's politicial views as a 'tip-off' needing to be investigated - is discriminatory. Discrimination is discrimination, however soft the application is.
For instance if someone tipped off social workers that the foster parents were actually jews, do you think this should result in 'questions being asked'? Not to say that all Jewish people are bad at parenting multicultural children, but after being tipped off about the parents' alleged Jewishness questions should at least be asked - in the interests of the children.
Or is that just an example of prejudice and discrimination? Should the correct response to such a tip-off be 'whether the parents are jews or not has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of care the parents provide so there's no point in investigating'.
If they were Orthodox Jews I can see it being quite legitimate to ask questions about their ability to deal with the cultural needs of gentile children. Being ethnically Jewish doesn't give an indication about a person's beliefs, whereas membership of UKIP does. When even the tory party leader says that most UKIP supporters are closet racists it's hardly galloping liberalism to consider the possibility that he might be right.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The analogy with being Jewish is absurd.
I'm curious how people know that the social workers did not investigate the parents, or simply said, they are UKIP members, therefore cannot foster non-British children.
If they did investigate, or did discover other stuff about the parents, presumably they would not reveal it, quite rightly, except to a case conference.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
When even the tory party leader says that most UKIP supporters are closet racists it's hardly galloping liberalism to consider the possibility that he might be right.
And he should know since according to a top tory MP some tories are closet racists as well. Shock horror! Investigate all tory foster parents immediately!
Or perhaps we can admit that closet racism is unconnected with party affiliation, and if an individual shows no sign of racism in the usual investigation of fitness to foster children (which are by necessity pretty stringent anyway) then membership or otherwise of any party shouldn't cause them to be discriminated against.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Why would you expect the Tory leader to have good things to say about the UKIP? Cameron wants to stay in power. The Tories need every vote they can get. The UKIP takes votes from the Tories.
Why wouldn't David Cameron try to convince voters the UKIP was racist?
Should we also take whatever David Cameron says about the Labour Party as the gospel truth?
Didn't David Cameron say multiculturalism is dead?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Social workers get criticised for not acting on tip offs. That's seen as a sign of neglect. "You should have at least checked!".
Social workers should also get criticised for acting on tip-offs. "You've no right to check-up on people like that!"
They can't win, can they?
Come on, Shipmates! I'm talking about questions, not casting aspersions, not the third degree. Questions in pursuit of this sort of duty of care are not snooping; they are looking after the interests of the children.
What you don't understand about my (and others') criticism is that asking questions - or even treating information about someone's politicial views as a 'tip-off' needing to be investigated - is discriminatory. Discrimination is discrimination, however soft the application is.
I do understand that.
It's an obviously prejudiced act to determine this matter solely on the basis of information received. That is true whether or not the information about political membership is true.
And some of the published statements seem to be saying precisely that.
But I think it is normal for social services to receive all kinds of third party information which a member of the public thinks to be relevant to their duty of care. They do not have the luxury of ignoring them. They have to make a judgement about every single one. To discriminate if you like between those they note but mark NFA - and those which may be worthy of a check.
Without knowing all the circumstances of this case, all I'm saying is that, given the migrant background of the children and previous court criticism, some measure of checking was prudent. Given the responsibilities they carry, social services teams do not have the liberty of ignoring information.
Would it have been a discriminatory use of that information to ask questions? Yes it would have. But only in the sense of deciding that the information to hand could not be ignored.
Lets play a hypothetical scenario.
Let's say I am the supervising social worker in a very similar case. I have good opinions of these carers. I'm happy they have what it takes to do the difficult emergency fostering job. Then this "information received" lands on my desk. I'm surprised. I know it's a sensitive case involving migrant children. What do I do with the information?
I think I'd pay them a visit, check things out again. Hopefully, I'd find my prior judgement confirmed, no grounds for concern. In that case, I'd write a report for the record, saying I had double-checked their ongoing suitability in view of the rumour and found no grounds for concern. It would be good to have that on the record promptly. It would protect the carers, the children, me.
On the other hand, if, against my prior judgement, I found there were grounds for concern about continuing suitability, then I'd report that as well. But my judgment would at that stage not be based on political membership. It would be based on professional judgment about the continuing suitability of the carers to do the job in hand. And I'd have to state what those reasons were.
But I don't think I'd feel I had the luxury of NFAing the information received on principle. Not in a case where the children were from a migrant background, maybe with outstanding immigration issues involved.
Would that line of action make me prejudiced in your book? Remember I work in a potential goldfish bowl where if things go wrong (any way) my paperwork gets crawled all over by 20/20 hindsight independent investigators.
Here's an alternative press story in completely different circumstances
"They knew they were UKIP members? They knew UKIP's attitude to European migrants? And yet they did nothing about that? They left children of European migrants in their hands? What's more, for reasons of political correctness, they didn't even bother to check it out! What sort of bloody incompetence is that"
The remarks immediately above reek of the worst kind of prejudice, don't they?
Welcome to the goldfish bowl.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
If you got an anonymous tip that the parents of a foster child were seen at a pub having a pint would you investigate to make sure the parents weren't alcoholics even if not evidence of drunkenness was reported?
In your alternate headlines, what happened to the immigrant children left with the UKIP parents? Nothing? If so, it says more about the people raising the complaint then it does anything else.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I think it is normal for social services to receive all kinds of third party information which a member of the public thinks to be relevant to their duty of care. They do not have the luxury of ignoring them. They have to make a judgement about every single one. To discriminate if you like between those they note but mark NFA - and those which may be worthy of a check.
Your entire post and position is based on the assumption that membership of UKIP in itself is 'suspicious activity'. Apparently in your opinion the UKIP have 'views on migrants' which are in opposition to the effective care of migrant children. Please could you explain what these 'views' are, and why you consider membership of UKIP to be meaningful information that a social worker should investigate further on. Please link to official documents or statements by UKIP that constitute grounds for this suspicion of UKIP members.
Your posts so far have mentioned only their opposition to the Human Rights Act, which, as I've explained, is not based on a disregard for human rights, or a support for discrimination against migrants, as you appear to have prejudicially assumed.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If you got an anonymous tip that the parents of a foster child were seen at a pub having a pint would you investigate to make sure the parents weren't alcoholics even if not evidence of drunkenness was reported?
In your alternate headlines, what happened to the immigrant children left with the UKIP parents? Nothing? If so, it says more about the people raising the complaint then it does anything else.
Why do you always argue reductio ad absurdum ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
From my perspective, political discussions on Ship of Fools often lend themselves to reductio ad absurdum. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Your entire post and position is based on the assumption that membership of UKIP in itself is 'suspicious activity'.
I don't assume that membership of UKIP is by its nature a suspicious activity. It's a legitimate, properly constituted party with every right to attract support. I do disagree profoundly with their policy on immigration and its related rejection of the European Convention on Human Rights. But they are well within their rights to formulate and promote that policy.
What has that got to do with consideration of what might be a prudent check by a supervisory social worker, given the real working conditions they face? Remember that throughout I've argued that Rotherham would be wrong if they have excluded this couple from this case purely on grounds of political allegiance.
In this Rotherham case (and similar) they had a different specific problem. Might the UKIP policy on immigration attract support from some people unsuitable for foster-carer work with the children of immigrants? I'm saying that they would have done better to check out that concern, rather than make any assumption about unsuitability without checking. My position does not rule out any particular UKIP members as perfectly acceptable carers for any child. But it recognises the possibility that, in common with every other foster-carers, some UKIP members might be more suited to care for some children than others. That's all "best fit" is about.
Anyway, in a case which has already attracted legal criticism on ethnic fit, they could hardly afford not to check out suitability. Even if the odds are in practice low, they could hardly afford the assumption that they were zero. Not in a sensitive case.
If you want to lump all that nuanced reasoning, that particular concern, under the general term "suspicion", feel free. I don't think that is what it is, but I can't stop you thinking that.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In your alternate headlines, what happened to the immigrant children left with the UKIP parents? Nothing? If so, it says more about the people raising the complaint then it does anything else.
It was a hypothetical. I'm trying to paint what blame looks like, how it can arise, that's all.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Your entire post and position is based on the assumption that membership of UKIP in itself is 'suspicious activity'.
I don't assume that membership of UKIP is by its nature a suspicious activity...
Okay but then you immediately follow this by saying:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Might the UKIP policy on immigration attract support from some people unsuitable for foster-carer work with the children of immigrants? I'm saying that they would have done better to check out that concern, rather than make any assumption about unsuitability without checking...
How is that anything other than suspicion? Affiliation with UKIP gives special reason for concern which needs checking out.
I think we appear to have utterly different definitions of ‘suspicion’ here.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If you want to lump all that nuanced reasoning, that particular concern, under the general term "suspicion", feel free. I don't think that is what it is, but I can't stop you thinking that.
Yes I call a spade a spade, however much you hedge. Might UKIP policy attract racists? No more than labour, tory, or no party affiliation whatever. It has absolutely no bearing - unless you are willing to support this with evidence that UKIP is more likely than any other party to attract unsuitable types then this is pure prejudice (and throwaway insults by rival politicians doesn't count as evidence - just more prejudice).
What is this ‘particular concern’ you speak of? You still claim that UKIP membership is a cause for ‘particular concern’. If you don’t want to admit to the word ‘suspicion’, or the word ‘prejudice’, please just answer this question:
If the social worker had an anonymous tip-off that the couple were members of the Conservative Party would the social worker need to check this out to make sure the couple weren’t unsuitable carers, attracted by prominent past tory leaders’ outspoken comments on restricting immigration.
If you answer yes, and also yes if the party in question was 'Labour' or 'no affiliation', then I'll accept that at least you're not advocating discrimination based on political views - if you think any political affiliation or none is worthy of concern regardless of party. Perhaps for you it is the tip-off itself that matters, not the substance of it.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Hawk
On the question of relative party affiliations.
I do think the UKIP policy on immigration is more likely to attract to its fold people with extreme views about the human rights of immigrants. I do not think the same can be said about the present Conservative, Liberal or Labour party policies on immigration. That is a reasonable inference to draw, not from the wording of the polices but from some survey work I saw a few months ago.
You can check out the links in this report. I accept that the survey results have been disputed by UKIP. However, the two surveys quoted back one another up. If you have evidence that these surveys have been discredited by any independent observer, I'd be glad to see it.
On the issue of immigration, note this quote
quote:
At the same time, however, Ukip critics tend to ignore the fact that their party does have considerable policy overlaps with the extreme right. Like the BNP, at the last general election Ukip demanded an end to uncontrolled immigration, tighter border controls, the expulsion of illegal immigrants, the removal of benefits for remaining immigrants and an "end the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies".
If I were a social worker considering a placement of migrant children that finding might give me cause for concern.
And this statistic
quote:
Almost two-fifths (37%) (of UKIP affiliates) backed the idea of repatriating immigrants back to their country of origin, and irrespective of whether they had broken the law
If I were a social worker considering a placement of migrant children that finding might also give me cause for concern.
What you are saying is that it is an act of unfairness to check the suitability of a placement in the particular case of this particular couple. That their recently discovered political affiliation provides no grounds at all for such a check. In this case, in these specific circumstances as so far reported, I disagree. It is a safer to check the placement than to hope it remains OK. I still believe it is wrong to pass judgment on the suitability of the couple for this specific foster-caring on the basis of their political affiliation.
I can think of loads of foster-carer placements where any check-up would have been completely unnecessary on the basis of this report i.e their political affiliation would be irrelevant. Not this one.
If you think that is being unduly suspicious, then we're going to have to agree to differ.
Hawk, you are entirely free to check out closely my views and my reasons for them on this website. It's just a discussion after all.
But it just strikes me as ironic that you are so reluctant to give a supervisory social worker a similar freedom to check out the views of two foster-carers whose caring on behalf of the local authority is actually subject to that worker's supervision. Foster-carers are not autonomous in the carrying out of their duties. And what they do in that role is a heck of a lot more important than us shooting the breeze here.
And that's it for tonight!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Undue suspicion?
I think it's pure bigotry.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
